Much harder today. If Ty Cobb played today he would only hit about .312. Of course, he'd be 140 years old.
Will anyone ever hit 400 again?
- Thread starter Charlie Marlow_rivals363743
- Start date
Batting Avg:
Trout .303
Puckett .318
Hits:
Trout 1493
Puckett 2304
HR:
Trout 334
Puckett 207
RBI:
Trout 867
Puckett 1085
All stars:
Trout 10x
Puckett 10x
MVP:
Trout 3
Puckett 1
Silver Slugger:
Trout 8
Puckett 6
Championship Series MVP:
Trout 0
Puckett 1
Only Ty Cobb has more batting titles than Gwynn and Cobb did it before the era of relievers. I'm not saying he was the most valuable, but 8 batting titles don't lie.
Trout has a higher on base percentage, in addition to hitting for way more power, playing way better defense and being faster. There is nothing that Gwynn is better at in baseball than Mike Trout.
Kirby's best season. OBP of .375, slugged .545, wRC+ of 150.
Trout's worst (non injured) season. OBP of .377, slugged .561, wRC+ of 167.
Again, there is nothing that Puckett did on the baseball field better than Trout.
It's all relative. Trout is an all-timer. Miggy is right below that level. The others are much, much further down. Great/Very good players, but not even close to Trout.
Career numbers in high leverage situations
Avg .300
OBP .444
Slg .562
you guys are silly.
that Mike Trout has played in very few meaningful games is no fault of his own
that said, if I needed a big hit to drive in a run today, my first pick would be Nolan Arenado (mostly because Harper is injured)
Yea, he only had a higher batting average, had more hits, and more RBIs. Other than that Puckett had nothing on Trout.
Well Trout is a scrub compared to several guys of the juiced-ball era of the mid-90's.
And Trout is a scrub compared to many guys of the early era of baseball.
When Puckett played, 20 homers was good power. Anywhere in the 30's could lead the league. The game is designed for more offense today. Same with the NFL...you could say every quarterback before about 2010 or 2015 was a scrub.
Trout is barely a lifetime .300 hitter. Pretty sure Gwynn had him there. However, Trout is probably the best player in the last 10 years overall.
Last edited:
wRC+ is your numbers related to league average for that season. Trout's worst season is better than Puckett's best. Trout is night and day better. It's not even close.
Somehow, Trout still manages to get on base more than Gwynn did. I wonder how......
Because of the roids stuff. He was so good for awhile that most teams didn't even try to get him out. Too good, just go to first.
The new 'advanced' stats are an ESPN/media marketing tool. Worse than meaningless...they have the new generation totally misled and ignorant on how good players are/were.
You have to use your brain and compare players to their peers of the same era. No magic stat-number can compare today's players with past players.
Pitching worlds better today, Trout better in every meaningful statistic (batting avg is not more important than on base percentage). You don't need to be a genius to figure out who the better player is.
The real HR king has a better lifetime batting average. .305> .303. Hammering Hank only has about 500 less hits all-time and has about 600 more HR's. Not too shabby.
His head and feet even grew that year. Amazing freak of nature. Its like he was grown in a secret lab somewhere.
Fine , but to call hall of famers scrubs is just plain stupid, I am sorry if you can’t figure that out you are stupid, sorry just calling as I see it !
No. Turns out, hitting against 95+ mph for 9 innings, 162 games per year is hard. Really, really hard.
I’m a HUGE Kirby fan, but Trout is an all-timer. I see as top 10 already.
Mike Trout has the highest WAR of any player since 2007…………..Trout was a rookie in 2011 who played 40 very rookie-ish games (.220 BA with 30 k’s)
Put Puckett on steroids with the new juiced balls and small ballparks and he'd hit 50 homers per year. With about a .370 average.
While I think Puckett was a great player, your pea-brained blathering doesn't help his case in the least. Puckett played at the height of the PED era, so nobody knows what he was or was not on while he was playing. He played in a ballpark that was famous for giving up hits and runs, mainly because the field was basically a slab of concrete painted green. And which "small ballparks" did Puckett miss out on? Target Field is certainly not more hitter-friendly, and no team in the AL Central plays in a more offense-friendly park that they did back then. I suppose he might have picked up a couple more hits per year in Houston or the new Yankee Stadium, raising his average by .00000001.
Like I said, he was a great player and rightfully regarded as one of the best RH hitters of the modern era. But there's absolutely nothing about today's game that would have lifted Puckett's numbers, your fanboy-isms notwithstanding.
My last post was hyperbole. Before that, it was all facts and sense. You have to compare players to their peers from the same era. You can't just say that everyone is superior today or everyone stinks today. And there is no magic formula number to prove who's better, especially from different eras. 'Advanced stats' should be taken with a grain of salt.